DCT

2:13-cv-00213

Rembrandt Wireless Tech LP v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:13-cv-00213, E.D. Tex., 03/15/2013
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants having done business in the Eastern District of Texas and having committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ products capable of using certain Bluetooth standards, including Enhanced Data Rate (EDR), infringe a patent related to communication systems that use at least two different modulation methods.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for enabling efficient communication within a single network comprised of devices with varying performance capabilities, a common scenario in modern wireless environments.
  • Key Procedural History: While the complaint was filed in March 2013, subsequent post-grant proceedings have significantly impacted the patent-in-suit. In March 2014, Defendant Samsung filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against the ’580 Patent. These proceedings concluded in December 2016 with a certificate from the USPTO cancelling numerous claims, including the patent's primary independent claims 1 and 58. A subsequent ex parte reexamination certificate, issued in 2019, noted these prior cancellations. This procedural history raises a threshold question about the viability of the infringement action as originally pleaded.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1997-12-05 '580 Patent Priority Date
2011-09-20 '580 Patent Issue Date
2013-03-15 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580 - "System and Method of Communication Using at Least Two Modulation Methods"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580, issued September 20, 2011.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inefficiency of communication systems where all devices must use a single, common modulation method to be compatible (’580 Patent, col. 1:25-30). In networks with mixed-use devices (e.g., some requiring high data rates and others only low rates), this forces all devices to be equipped with expensive, high-performance modems, even if their application does not require it (’580 Patent, col. 2:1-15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a central "master" transceiver can communicate with various "tributary" transceivers using different modulation methods. This is achieved by structuring a transmission with a "first portion" and a "payload portion." The first portion, modulated with a primary method, can contain information that "indicates an impending change" to a second modulation method. The subsequent payload portion is then transmitted using that second method, allowing the master to communicate with a device that would otherwise be incompatible (’580 Patent, col. 2:35-50).
  • Technical Importance: This method allows for the creation of heterogeneous networks where high-cost, high-performance devices can coexist and communicate efficiently with low-cost, lower-performance devices on the same medium (’580 Patent, col. 2:1-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶17). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's core invention as described in the complaint. It should be noted that this claim was cancelled in a 2016 inter partes review proceeding.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A communication device with a transceiver acting as a "master" in a master/slave relationship.
    • The transceiver sends transmissions using at least two different modulation methods (a first and a second).
    • Transmissions are structured with a "first portion" and a "payload portion."
    • The first portion contains "first information" that indicates which modulation method (first or second) is used for the "second information" in the payload.
    • For at least one transmission, the first information includes a "first sequence" (using the first modulation method) that "indicates an impending change" to the second modulation method.
    • This is followed by a "second sequence" (containing the second information) that is modulated using the second modulation method.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names a wide array of smartphones, tablets, and televisions from Samsung and Research in Motion (now BlackBerry) that are compliant with "Bluetooth Standards: Version 2.0 + EDR, Version 2.1 + EDR, Version 3.0 + HS, and Version 4.0" (Compl. ¶¶14-16). Specific examples include the Samsung Galaxy S III and the BlackBerry Z10 (Compl. ¶¶15-16).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The infringement allegation centers on the functionality of the accused products' Bluetooth chipsets. The complaint alleges that each of the specified Bluetooth standards "supports Enhanced Data Rate ('EDR') mode, thereby using at least two modulation methods" (Compl. ¶14). The accused products represent major, high-volume consumer electronics lines from their respective manufacturers (Compl. ¶¶15-16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides a high-level infringement theory without a detailed claim chart. The table below maps the elements of claim 1 to the allegations made in the complaint.

’580 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a transceiver, in the role of the master... for sending at least transmissions modulated using at least two types of modulation methods... The Bluetooth-compliant chipsets within the accused products, which allegedly operate using at least two modulation methods. ¶14, ¶15, ¶16 col. 7:58-61
wherein the second modulation method is of a different type than the first modulation method... The use of different modulation schemes for basic rate and Enhanced Data Rate (EDR) modes within the accused Bluetooth standards. ¶14 col. 7:61-64
each transmission comprises a group of transmission sequences... structured with at least a first portion and a payload portion... The complaint does not specify how Bluetooth packet structures map to this limitation, but implicitly alleges they do by accusing the standards. ¶14 col. 8:1-3
the first information... comprises a first sequence... modulated according to the first modulation method, wherein the first sequence indicates an impending change from the first modulation method to the second modulation method... The complaint alleges that practicing the Bluetooth EDR standard infringes, but provides no detail on how the standard allegedly signals a change in modulation. ¶14 col. 8:9-14
the second information... comprises a second sequence that is modulated according to the second modulation method... The EDR portion of a Bluetooth transmission, which allegedly uses a modulation scheme different from a preceding part of the transmission. ¶14 col. 8:15-17

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: A primary technical question is how the structure and signaling of a standard Bluetooth EDR packet map to the claimed "first portion," "payload portion," and the functional requirement that the first portion "indicates an impending change." The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of infringement by practicing the standard but does not provide the technical evidence to connect the standard’s operation to these specific claim limitations.
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis raises the question of whether the intra-packet modulation switching in Bluetooth EDR falls within the scope of the claimed invention. The patent specification describes the invention in the context of enabling communication between different types of incompatible modems, which may suggest a broader, session-level negotiation rather than a per-packet data rate optimization (’580 Patent, col. 4:56-61).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "indicates an impending change"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the alleged invention. The infringement case depends on whether the accused Bluetooth packet headers perform this specific signaling function. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine if a standard packet format's inherent structure can meet the claim's active "indication" requirement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that any data structure that precedes a modulation switch serves to "indicate" it, pointing to general descriptions of switching between methods (’580 Patent, col. 2:42-46).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendants may argue the term requires an explicit notification, not merely an implicit change in format. The specification uses language like "notified of an impending change," which may support a narrower construction requiring a distinct alert or negotiation signal (’580 Patent, col. 5:4-6).

The Term: "first portion" and "payload portion"

  • Context and Importance: The plaintiff's theory requires mapping the Bluetooth packet structure (e.g., header and data payload) onto these terms. The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether this mapping is supported by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue these are general terms meant to cover any transmission structured with a preliminary section and a main data-carrying section.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the specification defines these portions in a specific context of "groups of transmission sequences" used to establish communication between incompatible devices, rather than as sub-components of a single, standardized data packet (’580 Patent, col. 2:34-40).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges active inducement, stating that Defendants encourage infringement by selling products designed to be interoperable according to the accused Bluetooth standards, marketing their infringing capabilities, and providing instructions and support for their use (Compl. ¶17).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint includes a reservation of rights to seek a finding of willfulness based on discovery related to pre-suit and post-suit infringement, but does not plead specific facts establishing pre-suit knowledge by the Defendants (Compl. ¶19).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  1. Procedural Viability: Given the post-filing cancellation of the patent's primary independent claims (e.g., claims 1 and 58) in inter partes review proceedings, the fundamental question is whether the plaintiff has any valid and enforceable asserted claims remaining. The outcome of the litigation likely hinges on the status of any remaining asserted claims in light of these cancellations.

  2. Technical Mapping: Should a claim be found viable for litigation, a dispositive issue will be one of functional mapping: does the standardized packet structure of Bluetooth with EDR, which switches modulation schemes to increase data throughput, perform the specific, claimed function of a "first portion" that "indicates an impending change" to a different modulation for a "payload portion," as that process is described in the ’580 Patent? The complaint’s lack of detail suggests this would be a central point of evidentiary dispute.